Thursday, September 10, 2009

The Definition of Insanity

Now that I have given you the tools to come up with your own opinion on health care reform it is time to express my views. The best part about this is that I don't even have to write my own witty blog about how I think the Obama administration is going to screw us all over. Why not, you may ask? Because there are hundreds of thousands of people, like Andrea Tantaros at, who almost literally take the words right out of my mouth!!

Andrea Tantaros - - September 10, 2009

Obama Just Doesn't Get It

The president needed to give us facts on Wednesday night. He failed. He needed to compromise but instead he bucked bipartisan solutions and showcased the inflexibility of a zealot combined with the policies of ahard core liberal.

They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

Someone should have mentioned that to President Obama. He gave us nothing new during his ultra-hyped speech on health care on Wednesday night. After forty-five minutes and a TelePrompter on the verge of overheating, he blew it. The president made history by convening both Houses of Congress just to trot out the same stale speech, complete with the lines about the proposed cuts in Medicare that he refers to as"waste" to tax hikes to fund his plan.

There was one bit of news: an indisputable leftward lurch on the public option that signified not only that he is bound to their demands, but also that he is no Bill Clinton.
Unlike Clinton, Obama tied the public health option to his ankle. And much like a concrete block, he will go down with it. Forty-four moderate Democrats will not vote for the current House bill that includes the public option, enough to deny Pelosi the ability to pass it without Republican support.

To be fair, Obama's opening and closing tone was one of his best yet. But fluffy imperatives that call for us to "act," absent hard facts, will not result in a shift in approval numbers. If you had ears but no brain,you would have been moved by the speech (is that why Biden was crying?),but the public is much sharper, particularly when it comes to this issue. Here's what was missing, besides new material:
* No answer on how he can not only expand coverage but also cut costs.
* No answer on how private insurance goes down by increasing the costs of insurance
* No answer on how to cut the current deficit.
* No answer as to why he will cut waste and abuse to help pay for government run insurance option, but not to help cut the current ballooning deficit.
* No answer on how to make medicare solvent.
* No answer on why he won't cover illegals, but includes them in his 46 million uninsured count.
* No answer on what his plan is for illegals.
* No definitive, outcomes based answer on medical malpractice.
* No answer on why if this is such an urgent imperative, the plan won't kick in until after he runs for re-election.

I have to admit, the Republican response wasn't exactly a core shaker,either.

Public disapproval of President Obama's handling of health care has sky rocketed to 52 percent, according to the Associated Press-GfK poll. At a time when we're told to expect a $7 to 9 trillion dollar deficit over the next 10 years, the president is talking about adding another trillion to that number. That begs the question, why now?

Mr. President, you just don't get it. The health care debate ripped your ability to persuade through rhetoric right out of your hands. You needed to give us facts and you failed. You needed to compromise, and you bucked bipartisan solutions showcasing the inflexibility of a zealot,and the policies of a hard core liberal.

Though Obama claims "we are back from the brink" it is his presidency that is on the brink. The brink of collapse.

Andrea Tantaros is a contributor and conservativecommentator. Follow Andrea on Twitter: @andreatantaros.

Bravo Andrea for voicing what most Americans are thinking after last nights incredibly long winded, unsatisfying ramblings of President Obama.


  1. The facts are found in the bill, and I doubt anyone would want the president to sit up there and read the whole thing.

    I also think its a bit of hyperbole to say he bucked bi-partisanship when they are going to run pilots of tort reform and it included some of McCain's initiatives.

    We have to remember that just because the bill doesn't accept everything the republicans propose does not make it a failed attempt at bi-partisanship. Lately the calls for bipartisanship have seemed very "with us or against us" in nature from both sides, but I did like that some concepts were included even if they are a very watered down version. In this case I think TORT reform should be included flat out. We are making lawyers and the people they represent millions on the backs of the medical professionals that are just trying to help people.

  2. Yes you are correct that all the facts are in the bill but I am betting that less then 1% of Americans have read the 1000+ page bill and therefore Obama should have done a better job explaining the major parts of the bill.

    As for bi-partisanship, Obama's attemp was weak. And by the way, I will believe that he is going to "run pilots of tort reform" when I see it happen.

    I agree with you and I strongly believe that tort reform will significantly lower health insurance cost.

    Thank you so much for the comments and thank you for following. Be sure to tell your friends!

  3. Well apparently malpractice lawsuits only make up about 2% of health industry cost so I guess that shouldn't be a make or break deal, maybe the pilot trials is the best choice after all.